will star trek ever return to prime universe?

[Greg Cox]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

^Why is that? Why doesn't TV fandom translate into following all the add-on products the way it used to?

I'm not sure that was ever the case. I don't recall Spock Must Die hitting the New York Times bestseller list back in the sixties. Ditto all the old Get Smart and Dark Shadows novels I read as a kid . . . .

You're always just talking a small percentage of the viewing audience.

[Temis the Vorta]

Whoever CBS decides on to develop a new Trek series may have no interest whatsoever in keeping either the prime-verse or the Abramsverse, and if they can convince CBS it's the way to go, they'll sign off on it happily enough, IMO.

As a practical matter, the most likely showrunner for a new series is someone like Bob Orci who has a proven ability to milk more money out of the old cash cow that CBS probably thought had dried up before Abrams & co proved otherwise. And it would be downright weird for Orci to decide to ignore continuity he helped create.

[BillJ]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

As a practical matter, the most likely showrunner for a new series is someone like Bob Orci who has a proven ability to milk more money out of the old cash cow that CBS probably thought had dried up before Abrams & co proved otherwise. And it would be downright weird for Orci to decide to ignore continuity he helped create.

But aren't Orci and Kurtzman attached to Fox for the next three years via a development deal they signed?

[Greg Cox]

The thing is: "Set firmly in the original continuity!" really isn't a selling point to anybody except to nostalgic fans of a certain age. It's not going to attract new viewers . . . and might even scare them away!

"Geez, do I have to have watched all those old shows just to understand this one?"

[Temis the Vorta]

BillJ wrote:

---

But aren't Orci and Kurtzman attached to Fox for the next three years via a development deal they signed?

Is that an exclusive deal? Orci & Kurtzman were shopping their Sleepy Hollow pilot around to the networks last summer, so I didn't think they were limited like that. And of course they do Hawaii 5-0 for CBS.

I found this story but it was from two years ago. Orci's interview about talking to CBS about Star Trek is from just this past summer.

[C.E. Evans]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

As a practical matter, the most likely showrunner for a new series is someone like Bob Orci who has a proven ability to milk more money out of the old cash cow that CBS probably thought had dried up before Abrams & co proved otherwise. And it would be downright weird for Orci to decide to ignore continuity he helped create.

It depends on when the show comes about. If it's sometime fairly soon--say, about within the next two to five years--the odds are very good it'll be something developed by Orci & Kurtzman (they wouldn't be showrunners, but rather executive producers--those guys have too many projects going on at any given time to be tied down exclusively to just one for any real length of time).

But the longer it takes (due to either CBS dragging their feet, not liking Orci's pitch, or not coming to terms with him, etc.,) the more likely CBS might look at somebody else.

[Greg Cox]

trekmom wrote:

---

I love getting the continuing story and reading about my favorite characters. I can't imagine being a fan and NOT wanting to read the new books. But then again, I've always been a reader. I know lots of people don't read just because they don't like to. Weirdos.

I forgot to say before: God bless you!

(And I did I mention that I have new TOS novel coming out in March?)

[R. Star]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

^Why is that? Why doesn't TV fandom translate into following all the add-on products the way it used to?

I'd say it's just more that most people simply aren't going to buy a novel and take a few hours to sit down and read it in this day of 200+ cable channel packages and DVRs they basically can watch whatever their niche interest is whenever they want without actually having to put any effort into it.

[Dream]

TNG has it best. At the time it aired, it was the only Trek sequel in town so it was extremely easy to get into.

[Greg Cox]

Dream wrote:

---

TNG has it best. At the time it aired, it was the only Trek sequel in town so it was extremely easy to get into.

Hard to believe that was twenty-five years ago!

I remember watching the first ep while cat-sitting for a friend in Greenwich Village . . . .

[EmperorTiberius]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

"Nothing special" about bringing back Trek's most famous and beloved characters? I couldn't disagree more.

Characters will always be more important than continuity. That's why all the comic book characters, why all the classics, why Sherlock Holmes etc are reborn time and time again. Because the characters are loved.

Trek has tried and tried, but they never topped Kirk's crew. They are icons. And as we saw with the cancellation of Enterprise and flop of Nemesis, the setting of Trek itself is no longer enough to draw people.

Another generic Trek series further into the future with a crew of nobodies is doomed. A Trek series bringing back the characters everyone loves and updating them, THAT has a chance.

No there is nothing special about it unless you're a fan which is a small portion of the audience. What are you going to do, rejuvenate Shatner or Stewart? Or do you really want a bunch of kids playing them?

Good actors can be found for a new show, just like Stewart and Brooks were. The appeal of Star Trek was strange new worlds and technologies in adition to writing and acting. New generations of kids want to see wonders just like I did when I was a kid, not same old rehashed technologies. Everybody has a laptop now, everybody has a powerful database, everybody can buy a video game and play with phasers, starship combat etc... there's a million "gritty" shows on TV like the nuTrek, that type of stuff is just not interesting. A Trek series like that would flop in 1 season.

What needs to happen is that new, revolutionary technologies need to be invented, new strange stories need to be told, with a new compelling characters that we don't know, but want to know more about, etc etc. That's why I'd set it in the 25th century, have Picard and Sisko come in a cameo aboard new ship as 145 year old admirals or captains.

That said, I'd like movies to feature them, but a new series needs to be totally independent.

[Greg Cox]

EmperorTiberius wrote:

---

What are you going to do, rejuvenate Shatner or Stewart? Or do you really want a bunch of kids playing them?.

Why not? Classic characters can always be recast.

Worked for Bond, Batman, Tarzan, Zorro . . . .

[Bry_Sinclair]

I've always liked the idea of going back to the Lost Era and picking up a series there, plenty of scope for stories, bridging the gap between TUC and TNG and all the massive changes that went on there. There are also a few ships that could be the focus: Excelsior (the rumoured Sulu series from the 90s), Enterprise-B (repairing the damage that GEN did to Harriman, by making him a competent CO rather than the baffoon he had to be to make Kirk look better), or the Enterprise-C (from the time the ship was launched, she is on a countdown to an honourable death, but before that she would have done the name proud).

[EmperorTiberius]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Why not? Classic characters can always be recast . . . .

Because no one can act like Stewart or Shatner no matter how many manerisms they try to replicate. I'd never buy it, just like I didn't nuKirk. It was just alien to me.

PS. Those were all movies, and no continuity movies at that. When you see Picard in almost 200 episodes, it's a bit different from replacing shambolic Cloney with serious actor like Bale. Comic books vs Star Trek is too much like apples and oranges

[Greg Cox]

EmperorTiberius wrote:

---

Because no one can act like Stewart or Shatner no matter how many manerisms they try to replicate. I'd never buy it, just like I didn't nuKirk. It was just alien to me.

PS. Those were all movies, and no continuity movies at that. When you see Picard in almost 200 episodes, it's a bit different from replacing shambolic Cloney with serious actor like Bale. Comic books vs Star Trek is too much like apples and oranges

Okay, what about Bond? Suppose somebody had decided decades ago that "no one can act like Connery no matter how many mannerisms they try to replicate." Should they have ditched the character back in the seventies?

Heck, Bela Lugosi was the definitive Dracula for generations, but then Christopher Lee came along, and Frank Langella, and Jack Palance, and Gary Oldman . . .

No actor is irreplaceable. And audiences have proven that they'll accept new actors in classic roles, sometimes over and over and over.

There have been six different SUPERMAN's in my lifetime. Another Kirk or Picard doesn't faze me!